About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
it said local taliban was working with warlords to provide guards and weapons for the use of the contract. it came out that they were failing to adequately investigate the previous employment which resulted in the company's hiring individuals who previously had been fired for sharing sensitive information. security information with the taliban war lords and failure to appropriately some of according to the u.s. intelligence reports may have been involved in anti-american activity. all of that information was out in a classified we several weeks before it to attend comes out of 28 and was out in public of september 28th. guess who the state department gave the contract to for guarding them on the 29th. the eodt and then the were fired for never performing because they couldn't perform accurately. they wanted to litigate. meanwhile guess who is still guarding. we had egis guarding which was another contract of kabul. we still have armored troops then we did a contract with the jet. they finally took over the summer. i urge you all to take a look and you do not have to come secretary, you ca
. but the public report came out on september 28. and in that report it said that local taliban was working with war lords to provide guards and weapons for use in the contract. it came out they were failing to adequately investigate the forwards' previous employment which resulted in hiring individuals who had been fired for sharing sensitive information, security information work taliban war lords. failure to appropriately vet guards, some of whom, according to u.s. intelligence reports, may have been involved in anti-american activities. now all of that information was out in the classified way several weeks before september 10, excuse me, september 28, an was out in public september 28.
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
and defeated the taliban on our behalf not the mean he of our enemy, but these are radical islamic jihadists who want a cal fate -- caliphate in which the united states is sub jew dated to a religious -- subjugated to a religious ruler and they are willing to use violence if necessary, although the muslim brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in america they have made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, our state department, in our homeland security department, in our justice department, at the white house directly, and direct lines to the president, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the united states under shari'a law, not under the constitution, that they are thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in america to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. but the muslim brotherhood around the world believes many places violence is the way forward in those areas. but we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. and secretary clinton, unfortu
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)